Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
In March 1982, Ps purchased real property, which abutted a lake and included approximately ½ to 2/3rds of the earthen dam, which retained the lake. The remaining portion of the dam was situated on the lakefront property adjoining Ps’ property. When they purchased Ps made no inquiry as to the condition of the dam but knew that it was on their property but were not informed by the previous owner that the dam was in need of repair. In June 1982 two small holes were discovered. Eventually by August after two inspections Ps arranged a meeting with other property owners abutting the lake to jointly fix the dam. A second meeting followed, and differences of opinion resulted in the meeting being contentious. The excavator recommended that the entire dam be reconstructed. The other 1/3rd owners objected to their portion of the dam being reconstructed and told the excavator to stay off their property. The excavating work to reconstruct the dam was completed on Ps’ 2/3rd interest for a cost of about $12,500 total. P sued to recover from Ds their proportionate shares of the expenses incurred. Some owners had contributed to the costs, but Ds refused to do so. On April 11, 1985, Ps’ suit against Ds was dismissed. Ps’ suit was based on a breach of an implied contract one cause of which arose out of the common law riparian rights of property owners. The third count arose out of the language contained in the plat depicting the lakefront property. Ps’ appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co